Per WP:LINKEDIN:
As a reliable source: Sometimes. LinkedIn pages may be used as self-published, primary sources, but only if they can be authenticated as belonging to the subject. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources.)
Seems like a spree of edits based on vibes/feelings rather than policy. This is a bio of a business person, the Linkedin establishes key details of his career and is linked from his other websites to confirm it belongs to him. Not really sure what the edit "His LinkedIn is not a source for notability", editor should probably read policy & guidelines. Ditto for him "not being mentioned in Silicon Angle", seems to be citing information about the company he founded and should be included. Sometimes surprising what editorial standards editors are unfamiliar with, especially subject as a source, you see it misapplied on tons of articles in BLP and I have had such long talk page arguments about this. Reverting when I have a little more time so its not sloppy.
Additionally, I'm not a page reviewer but the several pieces discussing Schumann at length including the American City Business Journals pieces seem to clear GNG prima facie. These are legitimate coverage by a staff reporter.
Not really sure what these companies do, it should probably be better explained in the article given that the employment of AI is probably the best argument/underlying reason for notability here. Ihpkt (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
